In June 2010, the Supreme Court of South Australia effectively hoped for the death of elderly women.
The woman was trapped in a wheelchair in her 70's. She taught her not to give food and drinks and medicine insulin to her care facility and knew she would die.
She obviously insisted on refusing to take food and medicine. A case in the court was sued by a nurse's house as a nurse committed suicide, because it could be prosecuted when a nurse committed suicide or other crime guarded his desire.
The judiciary was the first in South Australia and the Supreme Court of the Western Australian Supreme Court reflected a similar ruling in Western Australia in 2009 that claimed that Christian Rociter allowed to withdraw nutrition and medicine are doing. It will lead to his death.
Rossiter had quadriplegic paralysis after a road accident, kept full capacity to understand my condition and make a reasonable choice for myself. His fully functional mind was trapped in the body that could not fulfill the basic human function. Nutrition was given through the tube inserted directly into his stomach.
He was not sick in the late stage but was able to live for many years with it regarded as a living hell. Rossiter taught his nurse to remove the feeding tube from the stomach as he starved to death. His caregiver was charged with murder charges and he was charged with committing suicide, claiming to the court.
Australian law does not acknowledge the assistance of euthanasia and does not positively recognize the right to die.
In either case, the court is required to remove the nutrition tube from the patient's caregiver by law, taking into consideration the basic principle that a healthy mind has the right to agree or refuse medical treatment at a person of an adult age You can allow and decide what will be done with your body.
Caregivers were only found to be obliged to provide essentials for daily living employees who lack mental ability to make decisions for themselves. This meant that these patients' caregivers were not subject to criminal liability for removing nutrient tubes in response to legal and competent requests.
Although this is still insufficient for euthanasia, it is a powerful advance against the principle of self-determination. Therefore, these cases are not concerned with the termination of human life, simply avoiding the prolongation of artificial life.
In the United States the New Jersey State Supreme Court acknowledged removing the respiratory tract from Karen Anne Quinlan and the US Supreme Court declared that nursing tubes are medical procedures similar to respiratory, cardiopulmonary, dialysis and antibiotics.
In the laws of the United States and medical ethics, it became clear that those who can not speak can stop nutrition tubes and medications.
However, the infamous case of Terry Schiavo, which caused 16 years of sorrow for families and a national commotion involving a 13-year lawsuit involving the US president happened. The reason why there was so much debate is a proof of the heat and passion of the polarized view in this field. The right to choose and the right to life.
Terry Seabo stayed in sustained nutrition at a Florida hospital, a 41-year-old female husband and parents removed the feeding tube that kept living her after the heart, the attacks were permanent brain damage .
All these decisions highlight the need for legislative reform. It is not a compassionate or dignified result that people starve to death (it may take several weeks) to die. You probably will not allow your cat to suffer unnecessarily, but you will not be allowed to show your same grandmother the same mercy and compassion. Of course, careful and open discussion is necessary for problems such as ability, influence, retirement abuse. However, as these problems have already occurred in many other situations, it is not considered a difficult problem to achieve adequate safeguards.
In the meantime, there is something every Australian can do now to save themselves and their families without saying suffering and sorrow.
You can create Advance Medical Directives (Americans call Living Wills). This is a statement of your loved ones and doctors about the type of treatment you do not want to receive or want. Severe illness or injury or recovery can not be expected (that is, when it comes to terminal diseases, or when it becomes sustainable vegetables).
In Victoria and South Australia, individuals can produce both the medical rights of doctors and the persistent power of the guardian sea.
In Western Australia, the Guardian Ship Advance Health Directive was introduced on February 15, 2010.
Except for the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, the power of sustainable guardianship is recognized in all other jurisdictions.
In some jurisdictions, "workaround" is considered if more intensive and accurate medical treatment and "lifestyle" power is required.
Some states, such as South Australia and Queensland, have the ability to create concrete preliminary directives on decommissioned decisions. These are sometimes called "anticipatory instructions" because they are a series of commands that anticipate a particular health condition and are given to the treatment provider.
Unfortunately, in 2010 there is currently no Australian legal consistency and consistency on the validity and restraint of these types of documents. Especially if you left home in another state or territory where you created the document. Nonetheless, even if such documents are not "bound" in all jurisdictions, the possibility of "convincing" is very high.
EmoticonEmoticon